From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Kan Yan <kyan@google.com>,
Make-Wifi-fast <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
Yibo Zhao <yiboz@codeaurora.org>,
Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@codeaurora.org>,
Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH v5] mac80211: Switch to a virtual time-based airtime scheduler
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:54:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mub0k2cd.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJnXXoiyWKSLHqMzMcSzHBM-HhfYtcURW1hYd-3Yf7K00NTqgQ@mail.gmail.com>
John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:20 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Or do a middle ground thing where we use 32-bit arithmetic
>> for the per-station weights, but go to 64-bit for the weight sum? I
>> don't really have a good grip on how much of a performance impact we're
>> talking about here, so I'm not sure which I prefer...
>
> Double width accumulation is very common in many applications.
> Double width addition and comparison are _much_ cheaper than
> double width multiplication and division.
Yeah, we'd be doing the accumulation in 64bit values in any case; we're
talking about mainly multiplication here (the whole point of the
reciprocal stuff is to get the division out of the fast path). So how
big of an impact is one (or two) extra 64-bit multiplications going to
have on a 32bit platform?
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-06 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-22 17:24 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-01-02 14:13 ` Johannes Berg
2020-01-06 15:20 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-01-06 15:47 ` John Yates
2020-01-06 15:54 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2020-01-06 22:19 ` John Yates
2020-01-07 10:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/make-wifi-fast.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87mub0k2cd.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=john@yates-sheets.org \
--cc=kyan@google.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
--cc=rmanohar@codeaurora.org \
--cc=yiboz@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox